Attachment C - VPC Summary - GPA-SM 13-23-8.pdf
Extracted text (via pymupdf)
14603 characters
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary GPA-SM-13-23-8 Date of VPC Meeting May 14, 2024 Request From Residential 1 to 2 dwelling units per acre and Residential 2 to 3.5 dwelling units per acre Request To Residential 2 to 3.5 dwelling units per acre, Residential 10 to 15 dwelling units per acre, Residential 15+ dwelling units per acre and Commercial Proposal To allow for a future mix of uses including commercial, office, multifamily and single-family residential uses Location Southeast corner of 19th Avenue and Baseline Road VPC Recommendation Approval, per the staff recommendation VPC Vote 12-0-1 VPC DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDED STIPULATIONS: Item No. 5 (GPA-SM-13-23-8) and Item No. 6 (Z-92-23-8) are companion cases and were heard together. Three members of the public registered to speak on this item, two in support and one in opposition. STAFF PRESENTATION Samuel Rogers, staff, presented the request, the location of the subject site, the surrounding context, the General Plan Land Use Map designation, the site plan, proposed elevations, the staff recommendation, the staff findings, and concluded by presenting the proposed stipulations. Committee Member Marcia Busching asked why there was a stipulation limiting proposed heights in the R-4 and R1-10 zoning districts, but not in the C-2 and R-3 zoning districts. Mr. Rogers stated that the stipulations limiting height were proposed by the applicant and that the question could be better answered by the applicant. Committee Member Emma Viera stated her appreciation for the proposed stipulations and stated that the stipulations are in alignment with various sustainability plans. Committee Member Tamala Daniels asked if there had been any stipulations regarding the consideration of the flood zone map. Mr. Rogers stated that in a previous case, a similar stipulation had been added by the committee but was ultimately removed ATTACHMENT C South Mountain Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary GPA-SM-13-23-8 May 14, 2024 Page 2 of 6 because the floodplain reviewers assess plans according to specific ordinance criteria. Committee Member T. Daniels spoke about a previous case where the committee had pushed for floodplain review to be a part of the rezoning application. Mr. Rogers stated he would be happy to investigate the case Committee Member T. Daniels referenced while the applicant presented. APPLICANT PRESENTATION Rick Jellies, representing the applicant with City to City Commercial Real Estate and The Lead Group, introduced himself and the property owners, presented the request, described the public outreach and work with the neighbors, spoke about the importance of the site location to the area and community, spoke about how the project changed and the stipulations that were added in response to community conversations, spoke about concerns with a connection to Gary Way, asked for a stipulation to be added capping the number of units in the R-4 area to 360 units, spoke about pedestrian connectivity, and stated that the streets and park would be built as a part of Phase 1. PUBLIC COMMENT JoAnne Jensen introduced herself, stated that she lives in Magdalena Estates, spoke about the applicant team’s work with the neighborhood, stated that she has met with the applicant team many times, stated that the applicant team and neighborhood had developed a shared vision of what is best for the subject site, emphasized the importance of remembering that the development is transitioning from nothing to a significant project, acknowledged that changes are inevitable, and expressed that the plan represents the best vision for the area. Ms. Jensen expressed her approval for the inclusion of wide lots in the development plan and voiced her support for the R-3 townhomes, specifically highlighting the two-story design, orientation, open view fencing, and setback considerations. Ms. Jensen also mentioned the hope to avoid undesirable uses within the development through an agreement with the development team and noted that there is not a large contingent from Magdalena Estates opposing the project. Ms. Jensen stated that the team could not have done better with the plan, highlighted concerns with Gary Way, stated that the Gary Way is hardly a road, stated that Gary Way is paved but not striped, and raised concerns that 15th Avenue has not been approved beyond the area near the Charter School. Ms. Jensen emphasized the need to have faith in something, recognized the efforts of the applicant team, and noted that there is considerable support within Magdalena Estates for the project. Ed Depinto introduced himself, stated he has lived in the area for 20 years, stated that the area is starved for responsible development, commended the proposed buffering to adjacent neighborhoods, stated approval of what the applicant is trying to do in the commercial area, and stated he looks forward to visiting the successful project. South Mountain Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary GPA-SM-13-23-8 May 14, 2024 Page 3 of 6 Erin Hegedus stated that she appreciates the work Ms. Jensen does for the neighborhood and stated that she came to support the community and ask for the trees and shade to be maintained. Ms. Hegedus stated that she only attended one meeting with the applicant team and was not aware there were additional meetings. Ms. Hegedus stated that she liked what Ms. Jensen discussed regarding the townhomes but explained that she does not want to act on faith and wants to see real plans. APPLICANT RESPONSE Mr. Jellies explained that there is a Zoning Ordinance limit on height in the R-3 zone, so a height limitation was not stipulated, stated that the list of stipulations had been abbreviated and explained that the full stipulations include shading and planting requirements, explained that the applicant team had requested stipulations to be added in response to conversations with the community, stated concerns about Gary Road, and reiterated that he would like to request a stipulation limiting the R-4-zoned area to a maximum of 360 units. QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE Committee Member Busching stated that there was a stipulation regarding the maximum density in the R-3 zone. Mr. Jellies stated that there is a maximum density in the R-3 zoning district per the Zoning Ordinance and explained that the applicant team had agreed to stipulate the R-4 density below what is allowed per the Ordinance. Committee Member Busching stated that the R-3 has a max height of 48 feet, stated that the R-4 is stipulated to a maximum height of 30 feet, and asked what the max height in the C-2 district is. Mr. Rogers stated that the maximum height in the C-2 zoning district is two stories of 30 feet. Chair Marchuk clarified that the R-3 area would be stipulated to two stories or 30 feet and that the R-4 area would be stipulated to a maximum of 360 units. Mr. Jellies confirmed this clarification. Committee Member Busching asked if the highest intensity would be in the center of the development. Mr. Jellies responded that the community was given a choice in the proposed configuration and that the streetscape was more important and noted that the land slopes down from 19th Avenue. Committee Member Busching inquired about how someone would access their home in the northeast area. Mr. Jellies explained the route and stated that while land use restrictions cannot be stipulated, the developer will impose restrictions through other mechanisms. Mr. Jellies stated that he was familiar with the subdivision that had flooding issues, stated he has been involved in flood issues in the area for 25 years, explained he worked on the Laveen Area Conveyance Channel, stated that a new plan had been put in place that uses retention basins and expands the storm pipe system, stated that rezonings are required to do a drainage study that accounts for the latest plans, and explained that it is in the best financial interest for the developer to properly manage water. South Mountain Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary GPA-SM-13-23-8 May 14, 2024 Page 4 of 6 Committee Member T. Daniels stated there was not a stipulation regarding landscaping within the landscape setbacks. Mr. Rogers stated that tree size was stipulated in the parking areas and sidewalk detachments, but not within the landscape setbacks and explained that the C-2 district requires enhanced landscape setbacks. Committee Member T. Daniels asked if solar canopies over the parking area were considered. Mr. Jellies stated that they are fans of solar canopies and they are a good idea depending on the government incentives available at the time. Committee Member T. Daniels stated she is a fan of landscaped parking lots so she will not push too hard. Mr. Jellies stated that the stipulation allows for a combination of landscaping and structural shade. Mr. Rogers clarified that the stipulation only allows for landscaping. Chair Marchuk asked if solar counts towards the landscaping plan. Mr. Rogers stated that there is no City requirement for solar, so it does not fit into the plans and explained how the stipulation could be modified to allow for structural shade. Chair Marchuk asked if the floodplain concerns will be handled through the process and if a floodplain stipulation would be appropriate. Committee Member T. Daniels explained that she had worked with the City to require that floodplain review be a part of the rezoning process. Chair Marchuk asked for staff’s opinion. Mr. Rogers explained that he was not a staff member when the process change Committee Member T. Daniels referenced occurred and stated that floodplain team reviews every rezoning case. Elias Valencia, staff, stated that the floodplain team reviews rezoning cases for any major concerns, stated that the plans will be required to submit grading and drainage plans during the site review process, stated that he thinks the committee should allow the process to run its course, and stated that the liability is always passed onto the developer. Mr. Jellies echoed Mr. Valencia’s comments, stated that in the subdivision with flooding problems the review process had failed, but the liability process worked, and stated that an in-depth drainage analysis would be completed on the site and surrounding area. Committee Member T. Daniels inquired about the overlay of flood maps during the review of the proposal and shared an exercise she had participated in involving floodplain analysis. Mr. Jellies stated that any property that touches a floodplain must be reviewed by the City and FEMA and stated that once the project is built the plans get sent to FEMA so they can update their maps. Committee Members T. Daniels stated that she would be more comfortable if a stipulation is added regarding the floodplain. Mr. Jellies expressed concern about the potential misinterpretation of stipulations, emphasized the rationale behind code requirements, elaborated on the necessity for adherence to both state regulations, which provide large-scale requirements, and city-specific criteria, which address detailed specifics. Chair Marchuk asked if any specific stipulations were under consideration. Committee Member T. Daniels emphasized the importance of reviewing updated overflow maps, noting the dynamic nature of flow patterns, stressed that modifications to the design could impact flow dynamics, and emphasized the need to assess potential implications for homes situated within these flow areas. Chair Marchuk suggested collaborating with Mr. Rogers on refining the language of stipulations. Mr. Rogers indicated that he had never added a stipulation regarding floodplain that was not requested by the floodplain South Mountain Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary GPA-SM-13-23-8 May 14, 2024 Page 5 of 6 team and explained that when the VPC had added a floodplain stipulation on a previous project it had been removed because floodplain reviewers review specific codified criteria. Vice Chair Arthur Greathouse III commended the applicant team for their exemplary communication with the VPC, requested further elaboration from the applicant on the intended commercial uses within the area, their compatibility with the residential character, and the potential inclusion of an urgent care facility. Mr. Jellies stated that the development team is looking to develop an urgent care facility, mentioned targeting a Fry's grocery store, and specified the intention to prohibit gas stations at the corner of 19th Avenue and Baseline Road. Committee Member Darlene Jackson inquired about the responsibility for park maintenance. Mr. Jellies indicated that maintenance would likely fall under the purview of the R-4 development team and assured ongoing efforts to ensure proper upkeep of the park. Committee Member Jackson raised concerns about the illumination of the park. Mr. Jellies affirmed plans for adequate lighting, with adherence to any applicable dark sky ordinances. Chair Marchuk inquired about the readiness of language concerning a floodplain stipulation. Mr. Rogers stated that while no language was currently available, it could be researched and potentially added at the Planning Commission stage. Mr. Valencia highlighted that a hydrological analysis would be required during the preliminary site plan review, cautioned against duplicating requirements with additional stipulations, and emphasized that preliminary approval meetings are open to the public. Committee Member Lee Coleman stated that the City of Phoenix requires a grading and drainage plan to be submitted and reviewed. FLOOR/PUBLIC DISCUSSION CLOSED: MOTION, DISCUSSION, AND VOTE MOTION Vice Chair Arthur Greathouse III made a motion to recommend approval of GPA-SM- 13-23-8 per the staff recommendation. Committee Member Emma Viera seconded the motion. VOTE 12-0-1, motion to recommend approval of GPA-SM-13-23-8 per the staff recommendation passed with Committee Members Aldama, Beehler, Brooks, Busching, Coleman, F. Daniels, T. Daniels, Falcon, Holmerud, Jackson, Viera, and Greathouse in favor and Chair Marchuk abstained. Chair Marchuk explained that he abstained because there was not tie to break. South Mountain Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary GPA-SM-13-23-8 May 14, 2024 Page 6 of 6 STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION: None.